Councilmember Lort introduced a walk-on resolution proposing a one-year SafeCamp interim initiative and a $630,000 budget adjustment to provide staffed, temporary shelter for up to about 40 people experiencing homelessness.

The proposal would fund heavy-duty all-weather tents, portable restrooms and showers, laundry, waste disposal and on-site staffing including 24/7 coverage and social‑work case management. Councilmember Lort said the site under consideration is the Walker Park property (the previous San Jose site) and described the program as an interim response while the city pursues mid- and long-term housing strategies.

The measure’s nut graf: proponents framed the SafeCamp as a near-term, humane alternative to unsanctioned camping, arguing it would connect residents to supportive services and housing pathways while reducing unsafe camping in parks and on private property. Lort told colleagues she reviewed models in other cities (Denver, Bay Area) and consulted local providers; she asked the council to grant administration flexibility on procurement and operating arrangements so implementation could move quickly if the council approves.

Discussion at the agenda session focused on program design, scope and cost. Councilmember Jones pressed for strong wraparound mental-health supports and asked that comparisons to other jurisdictions’ models and metrics be included in the final proposal. Councilmember Moore asked how the sponsor arrived at the target capacity of 40 and whether the program would serve families; Lort said the number reflects provider recommendations and that family-serving models require different facilities. Lort said staffing and case management were intentionally budgeted at a higher level to avoid problems seen during earlier, under-resourced efforts.

Council members also asked operational questions about provider selection, procurement timelines and insurance. Lort said she expected administration to decide whether to use an RFP or a noncompetitive contract based on timing and emergency needs, and she suggested that some services (food, volunteer support) could be offset by community partners. Councilmember Bernal asked whether providers would carry primary liability insurance; Lort said the $60,000 insurance line in the draft budget is an estimate provided by experienced operators and that final terms would be set during contract negotiations.

No formal vote occurred during the agenda session. Councilmembers asked staff to bring a detailed implementation plan, procurement approach and comparative examples from other cities to the regular council meeting for formal consideration. The sponsor said she would welcome amendments and stressed the item was an interim, one‑year commitment while longer-term housing initiatives proceed.

Ending: The SafeCamp proposal will return to the full council with a detailed implementation plan, budget breakdown and recommended procurement approach; councilmembers directed staff to provide comparative program outcomes and the proposed provider model prior to a formal vote.